Justice Samuel Alito said in an interview that Congress does not have the authority to regulate the Supreme Court, pushing back against Democratic efforts to mandate stronger ethics rules for the justices. Alito argued that the Constitution does not give Congress the power to regulate the Supreme Court. While Chief Justice John Roberts has also questioned Congress’s ability to act, he was not as definitive as Alito. Some Democrats rejected Alito’s reasoning, arguing that the Supreme Court should be subject to checks and balances. The ethics push comes after recent revelations about undisclosed trips and other ethics issues involving several Supreme Court justices.

  • Juno@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    “The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.”

    Lemme cut the middle out of that sentence

    The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.

    Which is exactly what they do, they establish and ordain. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nomination_and_confirmation_to_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States

      • Juno@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Ahh. See how you said that?

        That’s very wrong, AND you can’t read English.

        It’s both things in the same sentence. Like how there’s a supreme court, and lower courts which congress can ordain.

        Hey dumbass. They “ordain” supreme court justices when they question them and vote on them before they’re appointed.

        If it’s so wrong, why doesn’t the president just appoint them and done? It’s because you are actually reading it wrong. Congress DOES ordain the supreme court’s members. They do it in public for all to see.

        • gogreenranger@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          And now the Supreme Court, who interprets the Constitution as part of the checks and balances, is making noise that it could potentially disagree.

          Also, as someone who is so versed in English, you understand that a sentence can refer to more than one thing, right? I can write a sentence, post to Lemmy, and kick a football. Only the sentence is what I write. The comma separates them.

          Legal decisions have been decided on commas and they can be incredibly pedantic.

    • gogreenranger@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Right, but the comma separates the “Constitution creates the supreme court” and the “Inferiors courts that Congress may establish.” Cutting out the middle removes key text.

      It seems pedantic, but that’s exactly the argument that either has been or will be made, because that comma implies that the Supreme Court and “inferior courts” have separate sources that govern them.